UNITED STATES v. COOK (2021)

ORDER

Anthony Cook, a federal inmate with several health problems, moved for compassionate release because of his risk of severe complications if he contracts COVID-19. The district court acknowledged the risk posed by Cook's medical conditions in light of the pandemic but concluded that the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against his release. Because the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cook's motion, we affirm.

In 2013, Cook traveled from Chicago to Milwaukee to participate in a scheme with a family member and several other people to rob a check-cashing business with the help of an insider. While the robbers were on the way to the store, one of them displayed a pistol. When they arrived, Cook and the armed co-defendant entered the check-cashing business; the co-defendant held a security guard at gunpoint while a masked Cook took over $300,000 from the safe. Cook pleaded guilty to robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). He received a below-guidelines sentence of 144 months’ imprisonment, which he is serving at the Federal Correctional Institution Milan in Michigan. His projected release date is March 8, 2025.

In November 2020, Cook moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He argued that his medical conditions—severe obesity (BMI of 41), prediabetes, and hypertension—place him at a higher risk of serious complications or death from COVID-19. He also asserted that officials at FCI Milan were not taking proper precautions to contain the spread of the virus. The government acknowledged that Cook's obesity does place him at a heightened risk should he contract the virus. But it contended that the sentencing factors under § 3553(a)—particularly the dangerous nature of his offense—weighed against an early release.

The district court denied the motion. It concluded that, although Cook demonstrated multiple underlying health conditions that independently and cumulatively increase his risk of severe complications from COVID-19, the § 3553(a) factors weighed against his release. The court pointed out that Cook had a criminal history spanning over two decades and that his current offense was a violent felony in which he participated fully and knowingly. The court acknowledged Cook's good behavior and job training while in prison but noted that he still had over four years of his below-guidelines sentence left to serve.

The court also acknowledged Cook's argument that his sentence should be reduced in light of the decision in Dean v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1170, 197 L.Ed.2d 490 (2017). After Cook was sentenced in 2015, the Supreme Court held that a sentencing court may offset a mandatory-minimum sentence under § 924(c) by adjusting the sentence for the predicate offense, allowing for the possibility of a lower overall sentence. Id. at 1177–78. But, the district court explained, it had confidently concluded when it sentenced Cook that 144 months was “the only fair, just, and reasonable sentence.” The additional flexibility now afforded by Dean—even if relevant to a compassionate-release request—changed nothing in its assessment.

On appeal, Cook argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion because it erroneously relied on the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in light of our decision in United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020). But the court correctly acknowledged the holding in Gunn, which explains that the policy statement in § 1B1.13 can guide, but not constrain, its analysis of whether an inmate demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. Id. at 1180. Moreover, here the district court found that Cook did demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons, so consulting the policy statement worked no harm on Cook.

Notwithstanding the health-related reasons supporting release, the court acted within its discretion in denying Cook's motion. It acknowledged the seriousness of Cook's health issues and the danger of COVID-19 inside prisons, but reasonably found that release would be inappropriate under the § 3553(a) factors. It highlighted the seriousness of the offense—a violent felony—and how Cook's involvement in the armed robbery (crossing state lines to participate in the scheme, seeing the gun prior to the robbery, wearing a mask, and taking money from the safe while a guard was held at gunpoint) negated his contention that he was a “relatively low-level participant.” It also noted that Cook had a long criminal history (five prior convictions spanning two decades). And while the court recognized Cook's clean record in prison and positive recommendation by his work supervisor, it permissibly concluded that he should serve the remainder of his below-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021).

Because Cook does not raise the argument on appeal, we do not discuss the relevance of Dean in the context of compassionate-release motions.

AFFIRMED